Vfsserviceglobal.org

The timeline behind vfsserviceglobal.org

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION VFS Global Services PLC v. Ligia stanley, faiyi Case No. D2026-3844 1. The Parties Complainant is VFS Global Services PLC, United Kingdom, represented by Aditya & Associates, India. Respondent is Ligia stanley, faiyi, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <vfsserviceglobal.org> is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 27, 2026. On August 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 27, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Not Available) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on August 28, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 28, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 22, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 24, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on September 29, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant is a company organized under the laws of the United Kingdom that is active in the business of providing technological and logistics support services to various foreign embassies and diplomatic missions globally. Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registered owner of various trademarks relating to its company name and brand VFS GLOBAL, including, but not limited to, the following: - word/device trademark VFS, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), registration number: 7416667, registration date: June 18, 2024, status: active; - word/device trademark VFS GLOBAL, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), registration number: 006923569, registration date: June 29, 2009, status: active; Moreover, Complainant has demonstrated to own the domain name <vfsglobal.com> which resolves to Complainant’s official website at “www.vfsglobal.com” which is used to promote Complainant’s technological and logistics support services to various foreign embassies and diplomatic missions globally. Respondent, according to the Registrar verification, is located in the United States. The disputed domain name was registered on June 24, 2026. It resolves to a website at “www.vfsserviceglobal.org” which purports to offer an online visa application form inviting Internet users to provide sensitive personal data, and which has a look and feel similar in color and style to Complainant’s official website. Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, Complainant contends that it has successfully processed over 557.09 million transactions since its inception in 2001, and over 240.14 million biometric enrolments since 2007 and that it operates out of approximately 4,250 Visa Application Centers located in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. Consequently, Complainant’s VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks have meanwhile become distinctive identifiers of Complainant’s business in several countries around the world. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks, as the essential and significant parts of the disputed domain name are “vfs” and “global” which are confusingly and deceptively similar to those trademarks. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since (1) Complainant’s trademarks’ registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name, (2) Complainant has not granted Respondent any right, license, authorization or consent to use its VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks, and (3) Respondent’s intent in registering or acquiring the disputed domain name was to profit in some fashion from or otherwise exploit Complainant’s trademarks and business as opposed to potential legitimate speculation. page 3 Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since (1) Respondent must have been aware of Complainant’s services and prior rights in the VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks when registering the disputed domain name, (2) the website under the disputed domain name invites Internet Users to sharing their valuable personal information with Respondent who is taking undue advantage of such information which is ultimately affecting the painstakingly earned reputation and goodwill of Complainant and its group companies apart from misleading and defrauding innocent customers, (3) the website under the disputed domain name has been designed to closely imitate and replicate the appearance, presentation, and overall look and feel of Complainant's official website, thereby creating a false and deceptive impression of legitimacy and official association with Complainant, and (4) Respondent has been using email addresses connected to the disputed domain name to send fraudulent communications to members of the public, falsely representing itself as being associated with Complainant and soliciting payments for purported biometric enrollment services. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent’s default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar First, it is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between Complainant’s VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of its VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. Also, the entirety of such trademarks is reproduced within the disputed domain name, simply added by the term “service” placed in between the word components “vfs” and “global” in the VFS GLOBAL trademark. Still, the Panel finds Complainant’s VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks are clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, the term “service”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel further takes the view that the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. page 4 The Panel, therefore, finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Second, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. In particular, Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant’s VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name, and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the terms “vfs” and/or “global” on its own. Quite to the contrary, the disputed domain name resolves to a website at “www.vfsserviceglobal.org” which purports to offer an online visa application form, which is at the core of Complainant’s business, inviting Internet users to provide sensitive personal data; also, this website has a look and feel similar in color and style to Complainant’s official website, without any authorization to do so, which creates a likelihood of confusion to Internet users that this website is operated or authorized by Complainant which it is obviously not. Moreover, and as documented in the Complaint, Respondent apparently has sent at least one impersonating email falsely representing a connection to Complainant. Such use of the disputed domain name, therefore, qualifies neither as bona fide nor as legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of the Policy. In this context, UDRP panels have long held that the use of a domain name for illegal or illegitimate activity (here, the imitation and, thus, impersonation of Complainant by Respondent) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel, therefore, finds the second element of the Policy has been established, too. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Third, the Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The circumstances to this case leave no doubts that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s business and its rights in the VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks when registering the disputed domain name, and that the latter is clearly directed thereto. Moreover, using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website at “www.vfsserviceglobal.org” which (1) purports to offer an online visa application form, which is at the core of Complainant’s business, inviting Internet users to provide sensitive personal data, and (2) has a look and feel similar in color and style to Complainant’s official website, without any authorization to do so, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion to Internet users that this website is operated or authorized by Complainant which it is obviously not, is a clear indication that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for page 5 commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s VFS and VFS GLOBAL trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Moreover, Respondent apparently has sent at least one impersonating email falsely representing a connection to Complainant. In this context, UDRP panels have also long held that the use of a domain name for illegal or illegitimate activity (here, the imitation and, thus, impersonation of Complainant by Respondent) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The Panel, therefore, finds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy, too. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <vfsserviceglobal.org>, be transferred to Complainant. /Stephanie G. Hartung/ Stephanie G. Hartung Sole Panelist Date: October 7, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.